Marxists and the British

Labour Party

The New Turn – What Is the Alternative?

Minority Document

How Will the Party move Left?

52) Are we proposing to bury our heads in the
Labour Party? Absolutely not. The preparation for a new Labour government
must mean a consistent, well-orchestrated drive to the trade unions.
Industrial work must assume, not in words but in deeds, a vital cutting
edge to the work of the organisation in the next period. The reaction to
the counter-reforms of a Labour government will come first in the trade
unions and industry. This will then become reflected in the Labour Party
itself. We are likely to see a re-run of the radicalisation of 1977-81,
but on a much higher level. Unfortunately, the new turn will completely
undermine our position and isolate us from these shifts to the left in the
Labour Party.

53) The comrades argue that we will all get back
into the Labour Party later. However, according to the majority document
"No one has advanced a rosy, abstract 'tidal wave' theory, with 'the
Labour left welcoming us back with open arms.' This is the Minority's own
invention." (For the Scottish Turn 285). Yet it is the original
Scottish document that we read the following: "Moreover, when such
a tidal wave takes place, it would become almost impossible for the
forces of Marxism to be excluded from the Party." (Scotland,
Perspectives and Tasks 37, our emphasis). Clearly the 'tidal wave' theory
is not an invention of the minority, but expressed bluntly the tremendous
difficulties of us getting back into the Party, unless there was a
pre-revolutionary crisis in society.

54) In fact the Scottish document draws analogies
with pre- revolutionary Spain and France in 1934. This, however, is a
mechanical view of the formation of a left in the mass organisations. It
will not be built in one big bang which allows all the expelled to be
drawn back in. The left in the Labour Party will emerge through all sorts
of partial struggles of the class over a period of time.

55) The view of the EB majority is contradicted
by the latest edition of the theoretical journal (TJ). This says: "a
new left wing would develop in the Labour Party but this time it would be
a working class left, based on the trade unions, with our supporters to
the fore. Then the majority who have been expelled today would return."(p
7-8 our emphasis).

56) Here everything seems so easy and simple.
There is no talk of a tidal wave or a pre-revolutionary situation, only
the development of a left wing. However, the bureaucracy has had more than
50 years experience in fighting infiltrations from the Stalinists and 40
years fighting the Trotskyists. Lists of expelled would be excluded. It
would take big events to get us back in - if it was possible to make a
second turn after being so long outside of the Labour Party. Moreover,
even new comrades won in the future would be linked to the paper which
would be seen as having broken from the Labour Party.

57) The tragedy is that as the left begins to
develop we will still be outside of the party. We will have renounced
participation in the formation of the left from the beginning. We would
have handed it over to the left-reformists on a plate. Without the turn it
is likely that we could have played a decisive role in the early stages of
the left's development in the party. Now that will be closed off.

58) As for perspectives in the eventuality of a
Tory election victory, we stand by the explanation given in the British
Perspectives 1991 document:

"after a certain period of despair,
particularly at the tops of the movement, it would prepare the way for
massive class battles in industry, reflecting themselves in the unions
and the Labour Party. There would be struggles both in the public and
private sectors. One layer after another would be forced into battle to
defend their living standards. The timing of these events is not
possible to determine exactly. It could unfold within six or twelve
months depending on the recession. A Labour defeat would see the likely
removal of Kinnock as Labour leader and a battle open up for the
succession. Under these conditions it could not be ruled out that a
struggle within the apparatus of the party could trigger off a movement
from below. This could serve to draw a layer of workers into the
party." (British Perspectives 1991, 140, Our emphasis)

59) Yet according to the EB majority in the
theoretical journal, less than six months after the above statement was
endorsed, we read the opposite view: "If the Tories win the election
... there will be ructions in the Labour Party and the trade unions but
this would not compel workers to move into activity in the
party."(p8, our emphasis). What made us change our minds so radically
in five months?

60) The EB majority is attempting to revise
perspectives to play down any possibility of a leftward development in the
Labour Party for 4 or 5 years or even 8 years according to some leading
majority speakers. This delay, they maintain, is due to the
counter-revolution undertaken by Kinnock and the elimination of party
democracy. But wasn't this understood at the time of the national event
last January? At that time we all agreed that: "The illusions that
the Party leadership have settled matters by tying up the Labour Party
constitution in order to try and guarantee a permanent right wing majority
will be shattered by events"? (British Perspectives 1991 189). And
again, "The laws of the class struggle are much stronger than the
conspiracies, schemes and calculations of right-wing officials in the
Labour Party and trade unions."(British Perspectives 1991 156). To
justify their turn the leadership exaggerate the power of the Labour Party
bureaucracy to hold back the tide of events, as if their will alone will
forever determine the character of the Labour Party. One leading comrade
in Wales, even went as far as comparing Kinnock's grip on the Labour Party
to the grip Stalin held on the CPSU!

61) To shore up their proposals, those in favour
of the turn have raised the example of Greece to show how expelled
comrades can be readmitted. All the Greek comrades were expelled in the
mid 1970s from PASOK. They were recently readmitted into the party by a
groundswell towards the left. However what is important from the Greek
experience is the fact that they did not set up an open revolutionary
organisation/party - despite the fact they were all expelled. They were
always considered supporters of the Marxist paper and expelled members of
PASOK.

62) Their "open" work, referred to in
the 'majority’ document, (For the Scottish Turn 279), did not constitute
declaring an open revolutionary party on the lines of the Scottish Turn
but was on the lines of our past work. They did not stand in any general
election against PASOK but on the contrary campaigned energetically for
PASOK candidates. We did stand as independents in local elections, twice.
However, the traditions in Greece are entirely different to Britain. In
the local elections there is a tradition of many independent candidates
who stand against the PASOK slate. Often they win and are then invited to
join PASOK. No one has been expelled in Greece for standing independently
in local elections. In Sweden and Ireland the comrades stood independently
in local elections where list and proportional representation electoral
systems meant there was no danger of splitting the vote. In Britain, the
proposed 'turn' would place us in a totally different position, and
establish barriers between ourselves and the Labour workers.

As an aside, the attempt to justify the turn by
publishing AW's comments on Spain is completely false from beginning to
end. The material relates to the concrete conditions and circumstances in
Spain, at a time when there had been a right wing Socialist Party
government in power for almost a decade and where virtually all the
comrades have been expelled from PSOE for ten years. How can this possibly
compare with the situation in Britain with 220 expulsions, 11 years of
Tory government and standing on the eve of a general election.

63) The comrades argue that we were fully
justified in standing in Walton because of the special conditions in
Liverpool and the attacks by the right wing council on the achievements of
the 47.

'The key consideration for supporters at each
stage was how best to defend the gains made by the 47 and preserve the
morale and combatively of the most advanced Liverpool workers."
(Theoretical Journal p6)

64) According to the EB majority document
Kilfoyle personified the "counter-revolution". "To have
given Kilfoyle a clear run would have been seen as an ignominious
retreat." "the balance sheet of the campaign entirely justifies
our decision..." (For the Scottish Turn 166).

65) There are many individuals - particularly in
the PLP -who personify the "counter-revolution" in the Labour
Party and the abandonment of the principles of socialism and the class
struggle, but we have never suggested that the way we fight them is to
stand against them in elections. What is going to happen in the general
election - are we now going to stand again against Kilfoyle so that he
does not get a "clear run"? After all does he not still
represent the "counter-revolution" in Liverpool?

66) If it would have been "criminal"
and a "dereliction of duty" not to stand in June, as the paper
said at the time, then the same would apply in the general election.
However the comrades are rather cool about this idea now after the
experience of the bye-election. They realise that the result would be far
worse in the general election. How does all this experience help defend
the gains of the 47?

67) The comrades talk about the balance sheet
being justified. Yet it is clear we completely misjudged the mood of the
class, hoping the reformist trade union leaders locally would escalate the
industrial action against the council. We also misjudged the way the
working class themselves saw the bye-election. The comrades hoped it would
be a repeat of the May elections, despite the warnings of the Opposition
at the time. The vote itself showed the way the workers viewed both
elections completely differently. In the May elections, the Broad Left
candidates, as well as being closely linked with the fight against cuts
and redundancies, were seen as the legitimate Labour candidates. The
imposed official candidates were completely identified with the
counter-reforms of the Council. That is why in the one ward in Walton
where the Broad Left stood in May, in Anfield, the Broad Left candidate
got 1,600 votes and Labour came third. And yet in the bye-election we
managed to get just 1,000 more votes throughout the whole constituency,
despite all the resources that were put in to win the seat.

68) The workers in Walton did not want to
undermine Labour's chances at the approaching general election. We warned
of this beforehand, but the comrades were blinded by their feelings
towards Kilfoyle and did not take a rounded out view of the situation and
the implications that flowed from it.

69) But the leadership suggested victory was
possible to the rank and file comrades. We were told things were neck and
neck. PT stated we would get 10-15-20,000 votes. FC believed we were
heading for another by-election defeat for Labour similar to Govan. As a
result of these high expectations, the target for growth was doubling or
trebling the ranks in Liverpool. BI went as far as to put forward the
doubling and trebling of the ranks nationally. Where did all this appear
on the balance sheet'?

70) DC (Liverpool) in the paper stated that the
struggle was between Labour and Real Labour, that the Liberals were a
spent force. Yet on the day, there was a 13% swing to the Liberal
Democrats who came second. In fact if we had picked up an extra 6,000
votes from Labour (which the comrades hoped for), it would have resulted
in victory for the Liberal Democrats!

71) In June DC explained in the paper: "Now
a genuine workers party is in the making (the Broad Left)...But the
official party is withering on the vine. It will have no activists and
declining support." He also agreed in the paper in April with Eric
Heffer's statement that "without the left the Labour Party would
'become like the dodo -extinct'". This completely underestimates the
colossal reserves of support the Labour Party has not only nationally but
in Liverpool. Without the left, the Labour Party will probably gain over
10 million votes in the next election. It is far from extinct or declining
in support. Whereas the "genuine workers party", the Broad Left,
as the Opposition we predicted in June, has already split in Liverpool
after a few months.

72) In the paper, the whole tone was of a great
success in Walton. "2,600 Votes For Socialism" was the banner
headline. There was no mention of a defeat. The stand of the Broad Left
against Labour has even been compared in the paper to Keir Hardie's stand
against the Liberal Party in the period before the formation of the Labour
Party. This comparison was made in the paper without any qualification.
The clear implication - which will seriously miseducate newer comrades -
is that the Broad Left is the 'new' Labour Party replacing the old
'Liberal' Labour Party. How can the present Labour Party be seriously
compared with the major capitalist party of the last century? Again there
is an attempt to blur the class character of the Labour Party to justify
the "fundamental" change in its character. Ever since the
election there has been an attempt to re-write the history of Walton and
play down what was promised and what was really achieved.

73) To say that if the Broad Left didn't stand,
that our position was to give full support to Kilfoyle is a complete
distortion. What have we done in every general election or bye-election in
the past. For us it is a class question of supporting the Labour Party
against the bourgeois parties, irrespective of their candidates. But this
is not unconditional. We should have campaigned (independently) for a
Labour vote, an immediate general election and Labour to power on a
socialist programme. We would have firmly criticised Kilfoyle's programme
and record, and put forward our own. This is exactly what we would do in a
general election. What else are the comrades suggesting - abstention, or
what? They remain embarrassingly silent over this issue as they don't like
to admit that Kilfoyle will be given "a clear run" and we will
have to give him critical support.

75) Walton provided the political climate to move
against our public representatives. You won't find it on the charge sheet,
but it was made clear at the time that this constituted the key
opportunity to move against us. As the "Independent" (26
September, 1991) explained, "the (Labour) leadership is adamant it
was the challenge by a Broad Left candidate against the official Labour
candidate in the Walton by- election that galvanised Labour into rooting
out remaining militants out of the party."